The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

This is not a weapon system like a shield that you could counteract by using another tool like a mace.

Running a major gap in AEW craft is having your senses being outranged and your initiative limited. They will know where you are and what you are doing before you will know where they are and what they are doing. Being forced to crawl while they fly is already a loss.

If the enemy has a pair of binoculars, you can’t counteract that with a hammer to break those binoculars. How will you find them to use that hammer? They can see you (running with your hammer) with their spyglasses long before you can spot them. It’s lunacy. No, you need to get a pair of binoculars of your own to even the odds.

The only solution to a gap in AEW is to close that gap. This is not just another choice of weapons.

BTW, if terrain masking is such a great solution then the Tornado would remain king and the UK and Germany can forego the Typhoon.

Shiv is right that you compare capability and counter-capability and not like for like systems unless they are directly pitted against one another. The answer to countering a mismatch in AEW is to develop defensive ground surveillance that is survivable, networked and cyber and EW resilient. Similarly, advanced adversary surveillance capability can be countered by making your aircraft harder to find and fix by RCS reduction, EW and deception. Finally, long range networked AL-ARMs can be developed to deny these aircraft the freedom to freely exist in an offensive capacity. You buy AEW if you need to overcome surveillance and battle management shortfalls - which may well exist but this is the proper analysis which is done before investing in a particular capability.

No you do not need to exclusively go low to counter that capability. There may be many other ways, one of which will be to fly low and use terrain and clutter to your advantage. Other ways would be to invest in more RCS optimized aircraft (FGFA, AMCA, Ghatak etc), Stand off and Stand In Jamming, and long range targeting capabilities (networks and weapons) to deny these aircraft their advantages. You do not exclusively have to follow one track but can probe away at this advantage on multiple fronts. That AEW and Net-Centric warfare imposes a heavy cost on the opponent is well known..the IAF itself does that by exploiting NCW principles and capabilities. But there are counter capabilities that impose a different set of costs and limitations on the opponent. Why do you think the USAF is having a second, and prehaps a third look at whether to move ahead with a JSTARS replacement? It is because of these very costs imposed upon them if they are to operate using net-centric TTPs developed in the 80's and 90's using technology developed even prior to that.

well so far we are much talk and less action..no OTH radars to monitor the skies deep inside tibet and yunnanIAF dreaming of A300 based uber awacs and ignoring EMB145 gap fillersno plans to kit the MKI with a ERAAM like R37M (and potentially a chinese version of the K100 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -air-18536)no IRBM-SAM out of the shourya chassis with multiple agile AAM release..a kind of SM6 mkk.

brar_w wrote:No you do not need to exclusively go low to counter that capability. There may be many other ways, one of which will be to fly low and use terrain and clutter to your advantage. Other ways would be to invest in more RCS optimized aircraft (FGFA, AMCA, Ghatak etc), Stand off and Stand In Jamming, and long range targeting capabilities (networks and weapons) to deny these aircraft their advantages.

The time and resources to do all that would be far more than it would take DRDO to convert more Embraers for AEW&C!

But I understand your point. Still it would put us on the defensive making changes to our doctrine, diverting resources to ground radars, etc.

And as Singha ji points out, we have many things on our plate already that are not fulfilled. So how long before this new set of anti-AEW initiatives are carried out?

Remember this whole discussion started with the post of a new batch of 8 KJ-500 caught on factory ground by satellite in December, 2017. They are in mass production mode. They will be flying these things in numbers far sooner than we can do all those remedial actions (hardening radars, inducting stealth aircraft, stand off anti-radiation weapons, etc.) that you sensibly suggested. But the issue is time.

The only immediate answer is flying low with terrain masking and that is a massive disadvantage to the air force forced to fight that way.

Any lingering doubts over China’s plans to introduce Russian-made Su-35 multi-role fighters have been removed, with recent confirmation that the jet is now fully operational. Photos of the aircraft were published showing it participating in a joint combat exercise in the South China Sea.

..

China ordered 24 Su-35s in November 2015 at a cost of around $2bn. Deliveries to the PLAAF began on December 25, 2016. The first four examples in the initial batch flew from their factory airfield at Komsomolsk-on-Amur to a PLAAF training base at Cangzhou, 110 miles (180km) south of Beijing. They continued on to Suixi air base, home of the 2nd Fighter Division, 6th Air Regiment, assigned to the strategically important Southern Theatre Command.

Five more Su-35s were delivered in March 2017 and another five followed in December last year.

And now we'll get to see the reverse engineering of Su-35 technologies into Chinese Flanker copies. Expect the flow of those technologies to start showing results in the next few years.

China has put into combat service its new generation J-20 stealth fighter, a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the United States, the Chinese air force said on Friday, making it operationally ready.

In the flat terrain of Iraq - Saddam Hussein achieved the most effective terrain masking by burying his aircraft under the sand. Comparing flat desert with Himalayas is burqa vs bikini and claiming they are same-same.

Why China’s first stealth fighter was rushed into service with inferior enginesProblems encountered in development of new WS-15 engine mean PLA Air Force’s first J-20s are not so stealthy at supersonic speeds

...

the aircraft was equipped with inferior engines designed for earlier warplanes when it first joined the air force in March last year because “critical problems” with its tailor-made WS-15 engine, exposed by an accident in 2015, had not been fixed, two independent military sources told the Post.

“The WS-15 engine designed for the J-20 exploded during a ground running test in 2015,” one source said, adding that no one was injured in the accident.

“The explosion indicated the WS-15 is not reliable, and so far there is no fundamental solution to overcome such a problem … that’s why the J-20 is using WS-10B engines now.”

The WS-10B is a modified version of the WS-10 Taihang engine, which was designed for the country’s fourth-generation J-10 and J-11 fighters.

...

the thrust-to-weight ratio of the original WS-10 engine was only 7.5, while that of the WS-10B tops out at about nine. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the all-direction, vector turbofan WS-15 Emei engine is more than 10 – one of the basic requirements for giving the J-20 “supercruise” ability.

...

But achieving supercruise would require the single-crystal turbine blades of the WS-15 engine to cope with temperatures even more extreme than those handled by the WS-10.

...

“Using the WS-10B engines is just a temporary, expedient stage of the J-20’s engine development … in the future, the aircraft may use another new engine, the improved performance engine (IPE) version of the WS-10, the WS-10 IPE, until the development of the WS-15 is successful,” the first source said.

“It’s so embarrassing to change engines for such an important aircraft project several times … just because of the unreliability of the current WS-15 engines. It is the long-standing core problem among home-grown aircraft.”

Glad the Chicoms are not having an easy go at it and still have issues with their engines.

But the fact they are tackling something like the WS-15 and still have a bevy of WS-10X programs to serve as backups impresses me.

Why China’s first stealth fighter was rushed into service with inferior enginesProblems encountered in development of new WS-15 engine mean PLA Air Force’s first J-20s are not so stealthy at supersonic speeds

Glad the Chicoms are not having an easy go at it and still have issues with their engines.

But the fact they are tackling something like the WS-15 and still have a bevy of WS-10X programs to serve as backups impresses me.

yes definitely ..wonder if the PLAAF was the IAF would they have taken it ?

Well Saar, even the PLAAF wouldn’t accept an exploding engine (symptomatic of a core throwing subpar fanblades — happened to Kaveri too.) That’s why they had to go with a WS-10 variant.

Now what if we had a backup to the Kaveri like WS-10Xes were to the WS-15? What if it was a less ambitious engine that we got to work for the Tejas? Would the IAF have taken a lesser performing but all-indigenous aircraft like PLAAF did?

I don’t know. The IAF might not since there is still an attraction for the firangi like the SEF and MMRCA even when the Tejas flies on an ultra reliable F404. But one thing is sure, an all Indian Tejas with a local engine would create far greater pressure from the GOI and public for them to take it.

Here is a great graphic representation of the elevation of India compared with the Himalayas, Tibet and the Gobi desert. You need only to look at the topmost image that represents the present. Imagine an AWACS over Tibet and talk about what it can illuminate

shiv wrote:Here is a great graphic representation of the elevation of India compared with the Himalayas, Tibet and the Gobi desert. You need only to look at the topmost image that represents the present. Imagine an AWACS over Tibet and talk about what it can illuminate

LOL. Try terrain masking into that vertical wall. Those diagrams make it even worse for the ground radar situation we have to rely on vis a vis the gap in AEW. Our ground radars have to be situated far back to peer over the mountains. IAF aircraft have to fly over the mountains and be painted if they need to do any work against the chinis along the front.

Judging by those diagrams, the chini ground radar place on top of the himalayas would have a massive advantage over ours and you pair that with an AEW advantage for them as well?!

Hell, judging by those diagrams, the chinis can drop rocks and hot oil onto any jawan!

Admin note: Too many warnings issued for troll posts. One week ban issued. Will get a longer one next time, if you persist this mode across threads

chola wrote:Hell, judging by those diagrams, the chinis can drop rocks and hot oil onto any jawan!

When you use various forum posts as sources of your information this is a good conclusion to reach. But Chinese radars are situated back at heights of 4000 meters where humans can reach rather than the 5000-8000 meters where humans cannot build or maintain radar stations that require power supplies and other logistical details. Even hot oil requires fuel and oil to be carried up. Either way - this is not Iraq.

pankajs wrote:^^Check where the LAC cuts across the profile. My bet is that India will have a better view into China than China into India via Ground based radars.

In fact those images are veritically exaggerated. You can correct them to a rough approximation by taking the distance between Gobi and the Himalayas and stretching. Whatever way you cut it a huge part of India will be masked by the Himalayas to AEW aircraft and hot oil is actually a very good idea for the Chinese to use under the circumstances.

Singha wrote:cheen is going for DSI intakes on all a/c from JF17 onward.maybe the bulge creates additional room for eqpt or fuel

The biggest selling point is saves weight by removing the diverter plates and mechanism. Secondary effects of more room and fan shielding for better stealth. The disadvantage would be at some of the high speed flight regimes which is why diverter plates are needed to begin with.

Yah, looks like Cheen is all in on this fad.

According to wiki, aside from the F-35, the other DSI machines are all chini — J-20, J-10B/C, JF-17, FC-31 and JL-9.

China is developing and deploying modern military systems, especially conventional ballistic and cruise missiles, that could, if deployed in sufficient numbers, give it the capability to stage a comprehensive conventional surprise attack against U.S. and allied air bases in the Western Pacific Ocean.

Because those bases are close to China, there would be only a short window for missile warning. Further, these air bases, which are few in number, were built before the age of precision-guided munitions, so they lack robust defenses and, in most cases, hardened facilities. Therefore, such an attack could all too plausibly neutralize most of the aircraft at those bases.

Given this threat, the time has come for civilian leaders and military commanders in charge of U.S. aircraft and assets at all other bases in the region to consider themselves on the “front line” and take the necessary protective measures.

The emerging Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threat in the Western Pacific must be considered a potential revolutionary change in the military situation there. Although the likelihood of actual hostilities is at present low, the bottom line is that we can no longer rule out the possibility of a great power conflict.

Deploying large numbers of ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles, and modern aircraft with cruise missile capability and the range to reach American and allied bases in the region is a major part of China’s effort to unilaterally change the balance of power there, while simultaneously attempting to politically redefine the rules of maritime conduct and ultimately establish China as the dominant regional military power.

In addition to an uptick in the Chinese missile arsenal of short- and long-range land-attack missiles, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force and PLA Naval Air Force are expanding their combat aircraft fleets. That includes an expansion of their fourth-generation fighters, especially development of local derivatives of the Russian Sukhoi Su-27/30, deployment of the limited-stealth Chengdu J-20, and potentially a strategic stealth bomber that has been reported as the H-8, H-20 or H-X. And China has instituted a major effort to develop more and increasingly capable remotely piloted aircraft, ranging from medium-altitude long-endurance systems to at least two stealthy unmanned combat air vehicles and low, slow small drones (“beetle bombs”).

If the U.S. and its allies want to continue to operate effectively in response to this threat, they must act immediately to ensure the survivability of their Pacific air bases. At the very least, this would reduce the potential effectiveness, and therefore the attractiveness, of Chinese preemption. Since U.S. forces must expect to be on the receiving end of the first salvo of any attack, we must be able to defeat or at least survive it.

Countermeasures to help in this goal begin with dispersal, which could involve sending forces to additional bases and within individual bases, during both routine operations and especially in the event intelligence indicated the likelihood of an attack. The next step would involve hardening U.S. and allied bases and providing them with rapid repair and reconstitution capability, as we have done with bases in South Korea for decades and did in Western Europe during the Cold War.

Finally, the U.S. and its allies will need comprehensive defenses that integrate electronic warfare, ballistic missile defense, anti-cruise missile/anti-aircraft defense, anti-UAV systems and, depending on the location, anti-rocket, artillery, mortar defenses and ground defenses. Unfortunately, to do this, the U.S. and its allies must massively upgrade their defensive capabilities, which would include deploying unprecedented types of defenses. The U.S. and its allies need to duplicate these measures at their Western Pacific bases and, more selectively, at other facilities in the Pacific region (as well those that support the Pacific region).

All U.S. personnel in the region should think of themselves as being in a forward area. The front line is no longer just Korea, and our air bases in particular in the region are no longer peacetime air bases.

In March 1941, U.S. Army Air Forces Maj. Gen. F.L. Martin, commander of the Hawaiian Air Force, and Rear Adm. P.N.L. Bellinger, commander of the Hawaiian Naval Base Defense Air Force, warned of the danger of a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor. Tragically, the commanders whom they advised (Army Lt. Gen. Walter Short and Navy Adm. Husband Kimmel) ignored the warning—leading to disastrous results on Dec. 7, 1941. As threats grow more potent and potential adversaries grow stronger, the U.S. cannot afford to have this happen again in the Pacific.

The deadly crash of a People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) military plane in Guizhou province last month during a training exercise has raised questions about whether China's relentless push for military modernisation has outpaced its actual capabilities.

The incident, which claimed the lives of at least 12 crew members onboard, has severely hit air force morale, as it happened just weeks after the crash of a J-15 aircraft carrier-based fighter jet, a source told the South China Morning Post.

"We must recognise that in China, there is a fatal gap between the air force's combat-ready training and its imperfect aircraft development," the source said.

Despite engine and aircraft design problems, pilots have been pushed to fly the warplanes "because there is this political mission to build a combat-ready fighting force", explained the source.

The crashes are the latest in what appears to be a growing string of often-fatal accidents involving China's military planes.

While the PLA does not openly report such incidents, there were at least seven known crashes in the last two years, including one last November that killed Ms Yu Xu, one of China's first female fighter pilots.

But rather than a sign of deteriorating capabilities, military experts told The Straits Times the accident rate shows a strengthening of PLAAF and its sister branch, the PLA Naval Air Force.

TECHNOLOGY AND CORRUPTION ISSUES AT PLAY

The PLA's air programmes face significant challenges, not least because most of its warplanes are cloned from foreign designs.

The J-15 fighter jet, for instance, is based on Russia's Su-33. The new J-20 and J-31 stealth planes closely resemble America's F-22 fighter jet and F-35 joint strike fighter, prompting United States lawmakers to accuse Beijing of stealing US designs.

While China may have succeeded in cracking design secrets and technical aspects of foreign jets, it is still grappling with cutting-edge engine production which requires high-precision manufacturing and deep materials engineering know-how, which China lacks, said analysts.

The use of ageing aircraft, such as the 1990s-era Tu-154, for long-distance maritime missions also shows a lack of confidence in the new models when it comes to longer missions, said S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies research fellow Wu Shang-Su.

A more deep-seated problem is the PLA's graft-riddled past, which has likely compromised the quality of its fighter jet programmes.

Former PLA chief Guo Boxiong was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016 for having amassed a fortune in bribes.

"As vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission over the past decade, Guo was in charge of R&D (research and development) and reports were that he took 'tremendous bribes' from the defence industry," said PLA expert Arthur Ding of the Taipei-based Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies.

"If that's the case, the technology and quality of platforms like jet fighters may not meet the PLA's demands, and this can partially explain why they are suffering this kind of incident rate."

HIGHER MISSION, TRAINING TEMPO MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR

But experts agreed that the biggest contributor to the PLA's rising accident rate is that it has been tasked to take on more varied and demanding missions, alongside a vast expansion in its hardware and numbers. Since last year, the Chinese air force has conducted "island encirclement patrols" around Taiwan involving its fighter jets, bombers and surveillance planes. Such flights are the "new normal", a PLAAF spokesman said in December.

Footage from state broadcaster CCTV in recent months also shows Beijing wants to regularise deployments of combat aircraft in the South China Sea, through the air and naval facilities it has built on disputed islands there, such as on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys and Woody Island in the Paracel chain.

To support the greater range and number of missions, the PLA's air assets have been significantly boosted over the past decade. China had over 700 fourth-generation fighter jets last year, compared to 24 in 1996, the US-based Rand Corporation estimated in a report. The PLA today has almost 3,000 aircraft, about the same number as that of Japan and South Korea combined, said Global Firepower, an index of countries' military strength.

"More aircraft, more personnel, more missions, more training and a higher profile - these are all major factors that account for the incident rate," said Mr Jon Grevatt, Asia-Pacific defence industry analyst for military publication IHS Jane. "One of the outcomes of the increase in these factors is unfortunately more accidents, but that holds true for all militaries around the world."

More accidents in the short term also indicate President Xi Jinping's effort to get the PLA to change its culture is succeeding, said Dr Ding.

Since he took office, Mr Xi has pushed to transform the PLA into a modern military "capable of fighting and winning" a 21st-century war.

Dr Ding noted that in the old days, PLAAF commanders would conduct highly scripted training scenarios that had minimal risk of casualties, unlike real combat scenarios, as casualty rates directly affected promotion prospects. Today's exercises are much more complex, combat-realistic and integrated. Just last month, China conducted a series of training exercises involving the spectrum of its air assets - from the new J-20 fighter to the H-6K bomber and Y-20 transport aircraft.

"My impression is that (President Xi) has encouraged the top brass to face the reality that rigorous training will mean greater likelihood of incidents, and for the PLA, this mindset shift is probably a good one," he said.

But this also means that countries in the region should be prepared for a more formidable Chinese air force in the coming years - one that is able to project air power far beyond China's borders. "It's probably not so good for China's neighbours, because down the road, in the long term, it means China's real combat and operations capability will be substantially improved."

nam wrote:Moreover they can switch between engines that easily? We have issues using f414 on LCA, but Chinese are magician?

This is as good a time as ever to clear up confusion. We are not having "Issues" with the F414 - so please do not go up that path on this thread but take it to the Tejas thread.

1. In the 1970s the US developed an F-101 engine that eventually powered the B1 bomberThe very same core of the F-101 engine was used to create the CFM-56 engine a super reliable commercial engine that has probably carried anyone who has ever flown in the last 10 years - clocking up tens of millions of flight hoursThe Chinese copied the CFM 56 to make the WS 10 but it is not very reliable which is why they kept using Russian AL-31engines

2. In the Russians created a unique design for a thrust vectoring engine - the engine was called the R-79. The Americans bought the unique Russian thrust vectoring design and adapted it to the F-35B. The Chinese took the core engine of the Russian R-79 and tried to develop it into the WS-15 for their J-20. This is the engine that is failing right now

shiv wrote:The Americans bought the unique Russian thrust vectoring design and adapted it to the F-35B.

This is not true. I have described what the arrangement on these programs were in the past HERE and HERE.

They paid for the test data to the Russians so that they could accelerate their analysis and submit a more de-risked material solution for the consideration of the source selection committee. The engine the F-35B uses was developed based on the F119 engine that powers the F-22A. The F-35B does not use Lift Engines at all, unlike the YAK which did. Similarly, the nozzle in question was something Pratt and Whitney had been working on (with filed patents) since the 1960s. Since the YAK approach was very similar, they wanted test data from them to further bolster their own bid.

The Patent on the 3-BSN for an afterburning engine filed by the parent company of Pratt and Whitney in 1967 is linked below. While the aircraft it was supposed to power never flew, the engine and the nozzle was tested even at 90 degrees. YAK, with its nozzle which also largely used the same design elements, flew much later but never became operational.

When I say issues, it means larger intake, potentially cog issues due weight differences when using f414, over 404. Obviously nothing that can't be solved, however it takes time.

I always read that aircrafts are built around it's engines. Why would Chinese build thier premier jet around an unknown engine instead of al31. Yet there are claims about how it can be switched over to another engine quite easily.

shiv wrote:The Americans bought the unique Russian thrust vectoring design and adapted it to the F-35B.

This is not true. I have described what the arrangement on these programs were in the past HERE and HERE. patents held on the nozzle and the engine many times over the last few years. They paid for the test data to the Russians so that they could accelerate their analysis and submit a more de-risked material solution for the consideration of the source selection committee.

Fair enough - but it looks like Russian innovation and test data was useful to the Americans

nam wrote:When I say issues, it means larger intake, potentially cog issues due weight differences when using f414, over 404. Obviously nothing that can't be solved, however it takes time.

I always read that aircrafts are built around it's engines. Why would Chinese build thier premier jet around an unknown engine instead of al31. Yet there are claims about how it can be switched over to another engine quite easily.

Unlike cars that can have supersize engine sticking out from under the hood - there is a size and weight limit for aircraft engines as well as limits to teh intake size and structure strength in case of more powerful engines. So any new engine must have a similar size profile and should be usable with little or no modification of the existing intake geometry. This is not an easy or t=straightforward thing. This is why the Chinese are facing problems. We too have faced/will face similar problems but I would prefer to discuss our problems in a separate dedicated thread

air enough - but it looks like Russian innovation and test data was useful to the Americans

Specifically to Lockheed, who felt they needed more data as part of their submission. In the absence of accelerated, and rather cheap (YAK was financially in a bad state at the time and wanted to keep flying) data they may have had to work harder justifying (before their flight test efforts) to the source selection committee that their design was equally de-risked compared to their competitors at the time. This may have meant costly production and extended testing and much larger amounts of company funding to support that. They went to YAK only after having chosen their STOVL approach, seeking data that could bolster their bid.

As ramana pointed out somewhere - commercial engines are high-bypass engines - so their fan diameter is large. The image below of the CFM 56 shows the huge diameter bypass fan in front while the core engine is sticking out musharraf-side at the back If the Chinese copied the CFM-56 - it can only have been the core turbine because the bypass part is too large as an Al 31 replacement. As has been stated on here by many in the past - copying the shape is not enough - it is the materials that count and among the materials it's not just the metallurgy of the fan blades, it is also other things like the ability of bearings to take the stress of tens of thousands of RPM for hundreds of hours as well as lubricants that work in those conditions. Clearly the stories I have been hearing that the Chinese are so damn good at copying that they produce in 5 years what took 20 years to develop is propagandu-hype.

That aside I am sure the Taihang WS-10 still retains a low bypass fan attached to a low pressure turbine, But simply removing the original high bypass fan and replacing with a different one will clearly have a blowback effect on the low pressure turbine and hence the core high pressure turbine. This is not trivial stuff as far as I know and merely throwing money does not shorten the lead time in development.

What India needs to do ,if we haven't already started upon,it to create a million strong force of cyber-warriors based at multiple locations across India,armed to the teeth with our most sophisticated computers ready to go to war before the first shot is fired.Apart from dominating the air,land and sea and space,we need to dominate cyberspace as well and dominate as much of it as possible. Winning the propaganda war is as important as the real war,and winning cyberspace prevents the enemy from interfering with our civil institutions,etc.,apart from the military spectrum.Our ability to cause as much chaos in the enemy's commns. ,cybermedia and crippling its day-to-day functioning by IT attack must be our goal.

is the fuel economy of high bypass turbofan due to a smallish hot section but the air thats being bypassed at speed is also a big amt due to compressors acting like propellers of a turboprop engine? so this "free" air also generates plenty of fwd motion apart from the hot section spewing out exhaust